On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > Sure it does. You should just have written the code using (size_t)1, > > > > or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is > > > > unsigned long long. > > > > > > > > ... Unless what you meant was "get rid of all 32-bit ports" :-) > > > > > > Well, there is Win64 and this is essentially portable code... > > > > so use (size_t)1 then. > > Point remains that the original code is correct and no overflow can > happen. As such lint's behavior is just bogus.
Warning about 64->32 truncation is useful. Coding to avoid unnecessary ones is straightforward. I think you're complaining only because you got caught out by it :-) Ideally lint on amd64 would have warned also; that would have avoided the broken build... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
